Why can't (or won't) Canon make cameras like this anymore?

I have a feeling Canon will be coming out with an EVIL camera soon,,, Panasonic and Fuji have made some pretty nice one's but Canon could own that market if they wanted to.

Tadaaa wrote in post #12804642
I have a feeling Canon will be coming out with an EVIL camera soon,,, Panasonic and Fuji have made some pretty nice one's but Canon could own that market if they wanted to.

The size of the EVIL cameras indicates that all of the electronics CAN fit in a smaller body. EVIL + mirror box + pentamirror would seem to me to be pretty close in size to the AE-1, wouldn't it? The mirror box makes it thicker, and the pentamirror lump fits on top. Viola, a much smaller DSLR. People who want the "grip" could get it with the battery grip, just like film SLR owners used to do with the motor drive.

I have no idea what the market would be for such a smaller DSLR, but having "grown up" with film SLRs, I find the whole "Rebel is too small" thing to be the opposite of what I would prefer. A current Rebel is much larger than the old Nikon F Photomic, which legions of professional photographers managed to take excellent photographs with and apparently had no worries about whether or not their pinky had a place to rest.

MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: data

And whats up with the cellphones. My five year old phone lasts longer on one charge than my brand new smartphone!

A design like the x100 would be perfect for me,,, wish i had the cash.

MikeFairbanks wrote in post #12800074
No, but it's just common courtesy to follow copyright procedures. I didn't take those images, so it's my responsibility (especially the second one) to attribute the photos.

That really isn't the point, however.

Kudos to you.

Back to the point at hand. I think its more about ergonomics than anything. There is a much more solid feel to the dSLR when shooting in a professional manner. Look at all the compact P&S cameras Canon produces, I don't think its an issue of technology.

Eric wrote in post #12805201
Kudos to you.

Back to the point at hand. I think its more about ergonomics than anything. There is a much more solid feel to the dSLR when shooting in a professional manner. Look at all the compact P&S cameras Canon produces, I don't think its an issue of technology.

Yeah,,, the idea behind the EVIL cameras is to have a larger sensor in a smaller camera, for travel, parties, etc. for times when you don't feel like lugging the DSLR... And for me that's pretty often.

http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=zfsGb9SDcCU

why go retro when yo can go modern?

I have a feeling, perhaps its a hope, that at some point "retro" inst retro anymore. Just call it "minimalist" or "stylized" maybe that'll take the stigma and price away from trying to get a manufacturer to make something with metal cladding and a nice polish. I am proud of Japan's tradition of white camera bodies though, Pentax and Oly lead the way as far as that goes.
Wouldn't it be fun to stuff a point and shoot into an Ae-1 body! Just hide it right in there like it's in an underwater casing.

A small camera like that is horrible to handle with today's lenses. Can you imagine using the AE-1 sized dSLR with a 70-200 zoom?

Just look at the micro 4/3rd cameras and their ridiculous tele-lens. It totally defeats the purpose of how to hold a camera!

delhi wrote in post #12806013
A small camera like that is horrible to handle with today's lenses. Can you imagine using the AE-1 sized dSLR with a 70-200 zoom? ...

These kind of comments I also find amazing. I regularly used AE-1 sized film cameras with long zooms, as did everyone else during that time. Sure, today's zooms are bloated with all the AF and IS mechanisms and electronics, but you never did (and still don't) hold long lenses by the camera body anyway.

delhi wrote in post #12806013
A small camera like that is horrible to handle with today's lenses. Can you imagine using the AE-1 sized dSLR with a 70-200 zoom?

Just look at the micro 4/3rd cameras and their ridiculous tele-lens. It totally defeats the purpose of how to hold a camera!

Yes I can--and did in 1976

Back when 36 frames was the buffer limit--IS was not drinking too much coffee--and burst rate was one frame

You hold a large telephoto by the lens--not the body

RTPVid wrote in post #12806172
These kind of comments I also find amazing. I regularly used AE-1 sized film cameras with long zooms, as did everyone else during that time. Sure, today's zooms are bloated with all the AF and IS mechanisms and electronics, but you never did (and still don't) hold long lenses by the camera body anyway.

Sure you hold a "long" (define long) with at least one hand on the camera body. And that gets irritating, literally, on your hand when using a K1000 style metal body. I have a 80-200 f/3.9 manual focus K-mount for my K1000 is it is a pretty small lens compared to the 70-200 f/4 by Canon.

Because that style camera is difficult to hold, not ergonomic. I use my Pentax K1000 (very similar body design) and the corner of the camera wears on my hand when holding it for a while. There is no hand grip. The modern day SLR style is made out of being easily held for extended use. This is why I find the Sony NEX design to be going after "style" instead of practicality and learning from the past.

MikeFairbanks wrote in post #12800023
I want to see a return to these solid, metal bodies.

What gives?

Image below is public domain, per Wikipedia:

If they could have film that was 35mm long on one side, why not a full-frame sensor in the same package?

If Leica can do it, why can't (won't?) canon?